4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 1, 2016
Scalability and stability on the positive and lack of better integration with application development tools on the negative.
Considfer integration with open-source development tools.
Lack of integration
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 21, 2016
Vendor provides good support but when features are removed there is no explanation as to why or how to continue that feature and R&D response is slow.
Compare cost to value and future growth or change in methodology. You do now want to transform on transision multiple times.
Better anticipate change in methodology for example moving from Waterfall to Agile and having to change tools.
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 17, 2016
Overall experience was positive because of the HPE Value Added partner that we used.
If you do not have the expertise internally, partner with someone who has done implementations previously.
Reliability, functionality and ease of use.
Cost of licensing.
HP could have been more transparent of the differences between on-premises and cloud based HP ALM.
Would have obtained more clarity from HPE about the differences between on-premises and cloud based HP ALM.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 9, 2016
Very good funktionalaty. It does what we searched. but the user expirince for End User Testing is much to complex. Thus the implementation is not that succesful as we need.
Look togehter with the tester on the usability
The funktions for reporting and the possibility to automatisate the test togehter with another HP product
Reduce complexety for the end user to test
In the Futuer we will prototyp with the end user a testing tool
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 6, 2016
The HP Agile Manager Suite (so the various other products) integrate well, but more importantly, scale really well. We grew from 2 tot 20 teams within a few months, and the generic dashboards kept us informed on speed and quality metrics. The product integrates in our operation from the ground up, so in the hour-to-hour work any Agile team does, regardless of team funtion or team member role. This ensures me to have a 360 view on my Agile organization, saving the need for outdated processes like problem, change or incident management. Contact with the product development team was fast and efficient, enabling us to iron out bugs that arose in daily use. Ios integration is poor though, and the software has thaught little about integrating into (private) smartphones that our team members have on them. Its chief benefit would be its user friendliness to Agile teams, its integration into our quality and testing processes and the realtime metrics it provides. Its chief drawbacks would be its poor functionality on IOS devices, its steep license prices and poorly executed epic dashboards. Aggregated userstories, either epics or features, are illegible and "techy". Techy meaning: overly focussed on applications and application lifecycles, instead of business value and business planning.
Think beforehand on how you plan to scale, as its hard to change course during the scaling itself. Reassigning agile teams to different releasetrains means losing data, efficiency and predictability.
Having 20 teams sync according to our 'loosely coupled, tightly aligned' model. Having teams sync alsmost automatically due to the user friendly task board and product backlog saves me from having lots of processes that are IT instead of business driven, like defects management.
Its steep licences, poor scaling to IOS and lackluster Epic and feature level in Agile manager.
It has the danger that almost any IT-driven developed product has: overdesigning and (way) too many features and functions. When you start adding key-combinations, you know you've added too much. Plus: the dashboard functionality in Agile Manager performs really well, while the dashboards in ALM perform quite poor. They look and interact like Excel 2006. That's not a good thing.
I would integrate rather than couple business planning into the product and feature backlog functionality, to better ensure business and IT alignment across teams and across function. Sadly, this is where the product is least developed.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 17, 2016
If you are in an organization that supports waterfall implementations then HP ALM will work well for you. It has all the classical items required to manage projects, programs and cross team delivery. Additionally the overall automation tooling ability is one of few that support mainframe and green screen systems. Directionally though if you are in an agile environment there are other cheaper alternatives to use although automation for mainframe/green screen systems will be a challenge.
Works well in waterfall, project and program environments. If you are in an agile environment then I would look elsewhere for more cost effective tools.
Does provide good levels of historical reporting, tracking and traceability. Overall easy to use and robust for large organizations.
Fails to solve needs for agile (XP, Lean, Scrum & Kanban) driven organizations.
Implementation went well.
Couple of things: 1. Pushed to agile faster (so you are not focused on defect tracking rather bugs in production). 2. Looked for an alternative automation tool that is more cost effective. 3. Worked on changing culture of an environment where QA and development is tightly integrated sooner.
My rating has changed purely as we adopt agile techniques and practices.
They have and continue to provide good support, timely response and help to ensure that the overall product supports our needs.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed May 4, 2016
Overall a positive experience.
Consider value of using one product for all ALM/ITSM needs.
Wish the HP ITSM product was more desirable compared to competitors.
Wait on a decision to proceed until after more closely considering overall tool needs.